No. I would say Illinois is one of the worst. California has perhaps the most rational version of an HIV-specific law. In California, in order to be convicted, a person with HIV who knows that he or she is HIV positive must first engage in unprotected sexual activity without disclosing status, and with the specific intent to infect another person. Then, and only then, is that person guilty of a felony under California law.

Perhaps the advantage of the existence of that law in California is that it sets a fairly high standard. It targets only the knowing and intentional exposure of another person, with the specific intent to infect that person -- conduct that we know is pretty rare, that we have reason to believe is pretty rare. The existence of that statute would preclude prosecution of that person under a more serious criminal statute carrying a higher penalty, such as a murder statute.

How is "intent" different than "negligence"? For example, is there a difference between somebody who is lazy and does not want to disclose, and doesn't care very much about other people, versus somebody who really just wants to kill everybody they come into contact with? Or is it just considered intent if you don't disclose and you have unprotected sex?

That's a good question. Under the general criminal law, you have specific intent, and you have laws under specific intent, and then there are criminal negligence laws, where the person knew, or should have known, that by engaging in a particular series of acts or conduct, that he or she is exposing another individual to a serious risk of death, or serious bodily harm.

So, an example of that kind of law would be through vehicular homicide, where someone may be extraordinarily drunk, or driving their car in a manner that they know is placing people at risk, but isn't actually driving with the intention of murdering everybody in their path ... and yet may, through that negligent behavior, cause the death of people or a person.

But a lot of these HIV laws were passed because some politicians and prosecutors were frustrated by the requirement under the criminal law that you show that someone actually intended to do some harm, or behaved in a negligent manner. Generally, that's difficult to prove, especially if somebody is being sexually active, but used a condom.

Remember, as I mentioned earlier, that actually using a condom and trying to prevent transmission is, in most of the states, not a defense to prosecution. So the creation of many of these laws was an attempt to legislate away the requirement in most criminal law that you demonstrate some kind of specific intent or significant negligence.

"Someone who is very informed about HIV, and knows, for example, that the risk of transmission is less than 1 percent, even without protection, and then uses protection, would really not be able to use that knowledge and that lack of intent to transmit as a defense under most state statutes."

For example, someone who is very informed about HIV, and knows, for example, that the risk of transmission is less than 1 percent, even without protection, and then uses protection, would really not be able to use that knowledge and that lack of intent to transmit as a defense under most state statutes.

But in California, that person would be able to use that as a defense.

In California, yes. Absolutely, in California. That would be totally irrelevant in Illinois.

Where you're kind of guilty before proven innocent.

Oh, you're just guilty. If you have HIV and you had sex ... that's pretty much all that the law requires for a conviction in Illinois.

I see. So, of the 24 states, are there other states that you could just sort of rattle off, to warn people about certain activities there? Is it the usual states? Is it the South and all the red states, versus the blue states?

No. It doesn't necessarily play out that way. If I were going to warn somebody, I would warn them not to be HIV positive and a person of color, having sex with a white person when somebody's trying to run for elected office.

The pattern in prosecutions is, again -- and I really can't emphasize this too much -- there isn't any apparent connection between prosecutions, and the publicity surrounding them, and an actual threat to the public health. There does appear to be a connection between a prosecutor's desire to showboat and to get free coverage for being tough on crime, and tough on all of the marginalized people that are associated with HIV. Tough on gays, tough on people of color, tough on people who are sex workers, and use drugs.

We had a listener write in to us. She was in a long-term, monogamous relationship with a man, and they were having unprotected sex. She was on the pill. She went for an HIV test with a friend and found out she was positive, and then later discovered that her boyfriend had not told her he was positive. When she confronted him, he said, "Well ... oh, well. Too bad." So what kind of recourse does someone like that have? Should she do something? She said she wanted to do something to protect other people out there.

If she wants to protect other people, if that is her goal, then the most effective thing that she could do would be to write about it, get involved with community service organizations, particularly organizations dealing with and doing outreach for women, and emphasize the foolhardiness of hinging your self-protection on what someone else tells you is safe and taking precautions based on what you think you know about someone else's sexual activity.

Here is someone saying that she was in a monogamous relationship, and that apparently is not true. Without trying to tease apart all of the different elements of her particular situation, and what other facts are there, the message, the takeaway message, is that as adults, we need to take responsibility for our own health. We need to empower other women to take charge of their own health, and not depend on some man to protect them.

Good advice. But in a place like Illinois, she'd have an easy case.

You indicated that she was looking to try to protect other people. If she wants revenge, there are things that she can do that carry the risk of criminal prosecution ... like getting a gun and shooting him. Or she could run to the local prosecutor, and she could further entangle herself with this person by trying to get him put behind bars. But that doesn't do anything to help anybody else.

Can a person prove that someone infected them by HIV strain, or some other biological way?

I'm a lawyer and not a scientist or a physician. From what I understand, you can show that the transmission occurred from somebody in a particular community. But you certainly can't show, you absolutely can't show, the direction that a virus traveled in: whether it traveled from the person who has been accused of a crime to the person who was the alleged victim, or whether it actually traveled in the other direction, or whether the infection occurred from somebody who lives a mile away or in the next county.

When you say "community," how big is the community? Is it like all of New York City, for instance, or is it smaller than that?

As I said, I can't really answer that. I don't think I'm qualified to answer that question, except to say that you cannot prove the direction in which a virus travels by existing technology.

Plus, it's still beside the point. I guess the issue is, if this is a discussion about how to get revenge, that's one thing. That's not my focus. That's not what the Center for HIV Law and Policy does, or really a relevant topic, if we're interested in public health.

If, in fact, these laws were based in public health, and served the public health, and were a response to public health concerns, there would be some connection between the statutes and impact on risk behavior, or at least some interest on the part of people who pass them as to whether these laws have had an impact.

I don't know of a single situation in any state where there has been attached to these bills a legislative directive that the effectiveness of the criminal law be assessed so that the issue can be reevaluated. There's also no attention to, or concern with, whether these laws have an unintended negative consequence.

Articles on HIV and the Law

General

The ACLU AIDS Project
If you want to view first-hand some of the more shocking cases of HIV discrimination, this is the place to go. You'll find news about important cases the ACLU is fighting and information about the rights of people with HIV.

Resources on Legal Issues Related to HIV
A collection of documents on HIV and the law created by the HIV Law and Policy Center. The most important court cases on HIV are listed here. Beware of legalese.

Criminal, Deliberate and Reckless HIV Transmission
This article by the U.K.-based HIV charity AVERT offers an international perspective. It explores the ethics of punishing people for transmitting HIV and looks at some of the most significant trials from around the globe.

HIV Transmission Cases
An eye-opening, but by no means comprehensive, list of cases where people with HIV were prosecuted for exposing others to the virus.

HIV and Criminal Liability
A nuts and bolts explanation of Louisiana's HIV transmission law. Though the article only discusses Louisiana law, its explanation of how people with HIV can (and can't) protect themselves may be helpful to people with HIV in other states. (A small PDF file.)

HIV in the Workplace
Clear and concise answers to questions about how to handle HIV on the job. Ever wonder
if the health insurance company can tell your company that you have HIV or whether to tell your boss your HIV status? Find answers here. (This is a large PDF.)

HIV and the Law
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention prepared this overview of federal laws on HIV for employers. Though long and technical, it spells out all the nationwide rules about privacy and discrimination in the workplace.

"No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of an employee, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions and privileges of employment."

Comment by: kadosante
(NYC)
Tue., Sep. 10, 2013 at 8:38 pm UTC
If the public were more informed about HIV/AIDS, the fear, hate, and prejudice would be much less. Again if a person wants to be informed, the information is out there. Since it is a taboo subject, efforts should have been made to promote and encourage sharing information on the public scenes in a more friendly, digestible way. I am not asking for the extreme. In Paris, a non-HIV, well-known actress tongue-kissed an HIV man in public. But I can tell you that certainly makes a real difference in perception. I remember being part of a support group where we had a long discussion on whether to bring non-HIV people to our events. It is a fact people do share information accidentally and without any malice. I have brought my young adult daughter to the parties. As usual, men love beautifully shaped body. Some even asked her for dates. These were men much older than her, and I did not know their financial status. When they teased me, I used to tell them she has a mind and she can speak for herself. Privately, I did tell her about the emotional traumas most HIV people were confronting, and she should give it lots of thought/weight before entering in a relationship with (I say) an HIV+ man. I used to tell her even Magic Johnson must have those private painful moments despite all his wealth. It should be a crime through blackmails to set up another person in a relationship with someone who is HIV for revenge and other criminal reasons. How much research has been done in this area? What are the statistics? Is there reserach done to investigate states where authorities covertly tortured people with HIV/AIDS?

Comment by: stacey
(port st lucie,florida)
Wed., Jun. 6, 2012 at 3:51 pm UTC
im sorry, but as long as ther isn't any cure for HIV,and you should have HIV , i believe that you should let anyone who comes in contact with you on a level of possible transmission know. You are basically taking away that persons right to choose on whether or not they want to engage in whatever activity with you. I'm not talking about a healthcare professional,because that would be discrimination, but if i met someone regardless if it was casual friendship or relationship and i found out on some random, not you even telling me,. I was be more upset over the secrecy than the actual situation itself simply because i would view u as a liar. Feel bad for your circumstance but you dont have a right to make decisions for other people because you fear what some one may think.So many things could go wrong ,even if you use protection, it just simply isnt right, who r u to be judge and jury for someone elses life!

Comment by: ashley
(texas)
Sat., Apr. 21, 2012 at 3:04 pm UTC
My 11 year old daughter was spit in the face by her hiv positive step mother and the step mother sees nothing wrong with this. I live in Texas and was curious as to the laws for this matter. I don't want it to happen again and seeing how the step mother sees no wrong in it what do I do? Is there a chance it could've gotten transmitted?

See here: http://www.thebody.com/content/63213/ten-common-fears-about-hiv-transmission.html?getPage=4

Also here: http://www.thebody.com/content/art60161.html

Comment by: jolly
(australia)
Mon., Mar. 1, 2010 at 8:19 pm UTC
your are working whith a young man who inform you that he has a STD disease.he ask you not to disclose this information to his girlfriend,who is also one of your clients.
1.what etical issue does this present to you?
2.How would you this issue?
3.would your answer be different if he was HIV positive?
4.what guidance is provided by your agency policies and procedures?
(if you are not currently employed for an angeny research what type of guidance could be provided by an agency)

(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Beforeadding your comment, please read TheBody.com's Comment Policy.)

The Body is a service of Remedy Health Media, LLC, 750 3rd Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10017. The Body and its logos are trademarks of Remedy Health Media, LLC, and its subsidiaries, which owns the copyright of The Body's homepage, topic pages, page designs and HTML code. General Disclaimer: The Body is designed for educational purposes only and is not engaged in rendering medical advice or professional services. The information provided through The Body should not be used for diagnosing or treating a health problem or a disease. It is not a substitute for professional care. If you have or suspect you may have a health problem, consult your health care provider.